A little help

Den, this is a topic close to my interests in southeastern Arizona copper mining, and the Morenci Southern is a railroad just begging to be modeled! I have a very basic summary of the raiilroads in the area on my website:  http://sonoragrandeenterprises.com/esgrr/concept/reference/home.html

Imagine an incredibly busy and productive mining center in a gulch served by THREE narrow gauge railroads, with the town built on the slopes wherever space allowed...and you have Morenci. The original town is long gone, now part of the second largest open pit copper mine in the world. There are many photos of the town and railroads you can research, including the Morenci Soutnern (3'), Shannon Arizona (3') and Coronado Railroad (originally 20", then converted to 3').

I have some simple maps, but they are copyrighted. I can send you an excerpt of an article with a general map if you contact me offline via e-mail, see my website.

I have often wished I could go back in time and watch the operations of these three railroads in the confined canyons around Clifton and Morenci...what a fascinating place in that time!

How would one model the Old Corkscrew?

Sometimes it is hard to get my mind out of N scale.

The 2-8-0s and a few other details.

Maps

Sounds like it could be real fun to build. I now nothing about the RR. As for maps if you know when the RR ended operations, then take a look at topographical maps. Some of them may show the line depending on when they were updated. Contacting AZ historical societies might get you what you want to or look at college library history sections or some of the bigger libraries in the state.

Jack

@Jack

Morenci Southern

Here is a link for an aerial map of the Morenci Southern ROW:

http://davesriogrande.net/Maps/AZ/MorenciSouthern.html

Thanks Wayne!

Won that book Railroads of Arizona vol. III

Grade calculation

My visit to the Morenci Southern RR

Hello, I came across this forum a few days ago just prior to my heading out for a visit to the sites along the old Morenci Southern. At the time, the discussion was about the availability of maps for the area. I didn't have a chance to comment then, but I had downloaded a 1902 USGS Topo named "Clifton". It shows the railroad routing from the San Francisco River to "Old" Morenci. The map is available for free from the USGS site called "The USGS Store".

I used the co-oridinates taken off the map together with Google Earth to plan my visit. On July 3rd, I drove over to the surviving loop and walked the area--including the tunnels across the river. I then drove out to the east and walked to the three steel bridges that are still in place. I have posted photos of those sites at:

http://www.azbackcountryadventures.com/morenci.htm

Ernie

I found out something interesting about the locomotives.

Thanks Ernie!  I have to check that out.

I got the book Arizona Railroads vol. 3 which has a chapter devoted to the Morenci Southern.  I did a little studying in the book and research online.  I wish the book had more information.

The first three engines are 2,8,0s. To me, didn't look like outside frame locomotives.  These are engines numbered 1,2 and 3.  All the photos are taken from too far away or are in the shadows to determine the frame arrangement.  Finally when I did a search by the engine "name" of number 1 I found out that I was correct.  Though those engines are narrow gauge the first three engines are inside frame.  Bought from the RGS.  Built in 1880 and delivered to the Morenci Southern in 1900.  These are in excess of 56,000 lbs. Here is a link to a rendering done of one.

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/locomotive-1879-baldwin-obj/615818

If the ad pops up just answer Yes.

The other two, also 2,8,0s are much heavier at 80,000 lbs.  These two are outside frame locomotives.

As to the two 0,6,0s.  These are tank engines.  I have found a photo of a ST.  It is a fat little sucker.  Yet, I have yet to find a photo of an RT.  Does anybody know what the designation of ST and RT means?

Oh!  There were no passing sidings except in the yards at both ends.  Yet it was only 18 miles long, but took 2 hours to make the climb.

I'm typing this in IE11 at work.  It doesn't like the use of hyphens in this box.  It also wouldn't allow me to paste the link in.  There is nothing I can do about it at work.

Den

Just want to say....

that this looks like a very interesting prototype judging by some of the info and links provided. I really love what Ernie has done in scouting it.  I know nothing about Arizona railroads and even though I've entertained the thought of On30 in the past, finances won't permit it right now so I can't really contribute anything but I still will be following this with great interest to see what  you come up with.

Michael

ST vs RT

The only thing I can think of for those abbreviations is "straight tank" and "round tank."  Some earlier tank engines had straight vertical tank sides, while the round tanks are the more common type we see on most tank engines.

Those early Baldwin 2-8-0s (which the D&RG/RGS referred to as Class 56) are essentially the same as the Class 60 engines that were later reclassified as C-16s.  In other words, there are models of them available in most scales.  Actually the Class 56 engines were very slightly smaller - I think their cylinders were 18" rather than 20" in diameter if I remember correctly - but they're almost the same.

Thanks Chris.

Porter 0-6-4RT

The straight-side tanks I'm

The straight-side tanks I'm referring to would be like this Uintah engine: http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/DPS/Loco21AtAtchee.jpg (a Baldwin 0-6-2T), while the round-side would be like this D&RG switcher: http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/file.php?1,file=14583,in_body_attachment=1 (an 0-6-0T).

I may have misspoken about the straight-side being more common on early engines.  I had forgotten that the Uintah engines (both the 0-6-2Ts and the Mallets) had straight sides and were built relatively late, or at least within the early 20th century.

@Chris

ST & RT revealed

According to our good mate Wikipedia under their reference to the Whyte classification system for steam locomotives - see Suffixes at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyte_notation

RT = Rack steam locomotive with side tanks

here's one at  http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?locomotive=Steam%200-6-0RT

and another at  http://www.australiansteam.com/QGR%20Abt.htm that gives an explanation of the rack loco and how it worked with 2 separate steam engines on the locomotive, one for running on conventional rails, and another set of cylinders driving the rack pinions. 

Is there any record of the Morenci area having used rack adhesion to climb steep grades?  

ST = saddle tank

like this one  http://www.ilrms.com.au/kiama.htm  

@ John

Porter designations

Per the 1914 Porter Catalog, Classification of Locomotive Designs:

S = Saddle Tank

R = Rear Tank

T = Tender tank with 8 wheels

The reference is either wrong (at least for Porters), or they had saddle or rear tanks plus tenders. This would not be unusual, but an 8-wheel tender following these smallish locos would be very unusual, even in the desert.

It's likely these are abbreviations for Saddle Tank (more common than side tanks in arid Arizona) and Rear Tank, but they aren't the designations used by the builder - assuming they are Porters. Baldwin is another likely source, not sure what their tank designations were.

Hey Den

The 1908 Porter catalog is available for download at  https://archive.org/details/lightlocomotives00hkporich

There is a rear tank on page 46 of the catalog (page 50 in the pdf file)

Hope that this helps, 

Question about track and tie spacing in Narrow Gauge

I was thinking the other night about track work for the Morenci Southern.  Then I realized that the track work on the MS would be significantly different than the track work of a backwoods hauler or what we normally think of as narrow gage.  (Oh!  There was 20" baby gage right next to the MS tracks at the town of Morenci with all sorts of Porters running up and down the mountain.  Down the mountain at the other end, Guthrie, AZ was standard gage track.  Some owned by the MS.)

This is where my logic is taking me. The two outside frame locomotives were in excess of 80,000lbs., with tenders the weight exceeded 140,000lbs.  The big switcher was in excess of 70,000lbs.  There is mention in the book I bought of an incident with the "goat" and an 80,000lbs. slag car sliding backwards down the mountain out of control.  My realization was that this must be some significant track work for all this weight!  Probably 80lbs. rail?  It would seem the ties spacing would also be a lot closer.  Any ideas?  Is my logic taking me in the right direction? 

The difference in the visual comparison of 3 foot and 2.5 foot gauge track isn't much in HO.  I have taken a driver set made for HOn3 and placed it on N scale track.  One driver in sitting on the the rail head while the opposite flange is sitting on top of the railhead. I have a lot of PECO N scale code 55 track and turnouts on hand.  Perhaps enough to build the entire layout.  I have nothing in HOn3, not a single piece.

I did find an online article where the author uses the PECO code 55 track and turnouts to build his layout.  However, he re-ties the turnouts and track.  Using fast track templates for HOn30 he lays out the required PC ties, disassembles the PECO turnout and rebuilds it on HOn30 ties.  He does this to get the appropriate tie width.  Sounds like a lot of work!  I won't know until I try it.

On the MS the track turnouts are only located in the two yards at both ends.  From the photos I have seen none of the ties are visible between the rails. The top of the tie ends are just visible.

Any comments, suggestion, advice?

Den

Some thoughts

Den, the MS would have been built to the same standards as the Shannon Arizona and the Coronado Railroad in the area, which was expanded to 3' gauge and had similar locos to the MS in its later narrow gauge years (before it was expanded to standard gauge). Not really heavy duty track or rail, guess code 55 would be a good assumption. However, realize that if you are going even narrower...HOn30, for example...you are moving towards what would look more appropriate for 2' gauge rather than 3'.

I think of it this way...you decide what is most important to you, realism and scale accuracy or overall effect, track you have on hand to save $$$, etc. I have seen modelers mix small Porters and tiny cars with the 'bigger' On30 equipment, and they look a bit strange together, at least in my opinion. The more effective layouts I have seen go 'one way' or 'another' - they either emulate a 2' line with narrow, small locos and cars, or they follow after 3' gauge with bigger equipment. The problem is, your 'big' C16 2-8-0s and other steamers are going to be difficult or expensive to source in HOn30. So, HOn3 would be the way to go, with a ton of available equipment, but your N track won't help you there.

If you are willing to deviate from the actual MS a bit, HOn30 offers some really cool options...check out the Minitrains site for just a starter:  http://www.minitrains.eu/mt-prod.html. Check out the Copperopolis & Fiddletown train set. I would have a lot of fun with this stuff and the freedom that this scale would give you in really doing those loops justice. You could adapt and scratchbuild your freight equipment, it would be a lot of fun...and it would put your N Peco to good use.

If i had it to do over again, I would probably be buildign an HOn30 layout myself right now!